Relationship descriptions

[Mary C]

Hi
I have a John Hollister in 1690 who in his Will refers to his "late wife's" (Joan Webb) "granddaughter" - Mary. Mary is in fact the daughter of John's brother Philip and his late wife Jane Webb. He does get a bit mixed up with relationships in his Will - he refers to his stepdaughter as daughter and daughter in law. Mary would have been his late wife's niece (if I have that right!) He also refers to Mary's two daughters as 'daughters of his late wife's granddaughter'

Am I on the right track if I assume that John just got the relationships wrong or is there some other explanation?

He also refers to various cousins, which I think is probably a quite flexible description!

Mary

[arthurk]

At that date, daughter-in-law was in fairly common use to refer to a stepdaughter, so I don't think it's a case of getting mixed up. And if he had accepted said stepdaughter into the family, he might have sometimes referred to her just as 'daughter'. Cousin was often used to refer to any undefined relative, so all you can take from that is that he believed they were related in some way, but he either didn't know how, or didn't think it was necessary to explain it.

The fact that John had a niece Mary doesn't mean there wasn't another one somewhere - it's a common enough name, and mixing up your late wife's granddaughter with your brother's daughter isn't a very obvious mistake.

What you've said indicates that Joan was a widow when she married John, though it's not clear whether Webb is her married or maiden name - or how many previous marriages she may have had. All you can say is that during her life she was probably known under at least 3 surnames. The will suggests that you need to look for a child of hers, born under one of those surnames, who went on to have a daughter Mary. And there could be quite a few surnames in the trail you follow, so Mary's surname might be nothing like Webb or Hollister, or, quite by coincidence, it might have turned out as one of them.

For example, say Joan was once known as Joan Smith, and she had a daughter Anne, who married Mr Jones. Anne (now Jones) had a daughter Mary (Joan's granddaughter, as mentioned in the will), but by the time the will was written she could herself have been married and known as Mary Richards or Webb or Hollister or anything.

So really you need to look thoroughly into Joan's family and eliminate all possibilities there before assuming that Mary was John's niece.

Arthur

[Mary C]

Many thanks your reply Arthur. What I should have written is that the 'Mary' was Mary Mittings, nee Hollister with two daughters Elizabeth and Mary. She is the confirmed daughter of Philip Hollister & Jane Webb - Mary's Marriage Record to Richard Mittings and Philip's Will in which he talks of an Agreement he made with Richard on the occasion of that marriage provide evidence of this.

John Hollister was the second husband of Joan who had been married to a Thomas Webb. I have checked their children and grandchildren and they all basically confirm John's Will regarding his legacies to them.

My problem is that John's Will then goes on to state "I give and bequeath to my late wife's granddaughter Mary Mittings two daughters Elizabeth and Mary". My thinking was that he was referring to his wife’s niece (Mary) as her granddaughter. However, after playing around with various scenarios I am thinking that John’s wife Joan (previously Webb) was in fact the mother of Jane Webb, wife of Philip. This would mean that Mary Mittings was the granddaughter of Joan.

This does leave a question about the relationship between John and Philip. John is definitely named in Philip’s Will as his brother but John’s Will names his Executor as his cousin Philip. Not sure if this is the same person.
If indeed they were brothers Philip would not have been allowed to marry his brother’s step daughter.

Such confusion!

[arthurk]

It is rather complicated, isn't it. However...

My problem is that John's Will then goes on to state "I give and bequeath to my late wife's granddaughter Mary Mittings two daughters Elizabeth and Mary". My thinking was that he was referring to his wife’s niece (Mary) as her granddaughter. However, after playing around with various scenarios I am thinking that John’s wife Joan (previously Webb) was in fact the mother of Jane Webb, wife of Philip. This would mean that Mary Mittings was the granddaughter of Joan.

This does leave a question about the relationship between John and Philip. John is definitely named in Philip’s Will as his brother but John’s Will names his Executor as his cousin Philip. Not sure if this is the same person.
If indeed they were brothers Philip would not have been allowed to marry his brother’s step daughter.

You may be on to something here. And in fact I don't think there would have been a problem about Philip marrying John's step-daughter. You don't say which marriage happened first, so might it in fact have been John marrying Philip's mother-in-law, which again I think would have been allowed.

I may have found the marriage of Philip Hollister and Jane Webb in the Bristol area in 1659 (a Quaker ceremony), but when did John marry Joan? I didn't find a definite match for this - the only possibles that I spotted named one party only, but I think they were later than 1659.

[Mary C]

Joan's first husband Thomas Webb was deceased at the time of his daughter Elizabeth's marriage in 1677. There is a marriage record of a John Hollister and 'Joane, Jayne' - no surname in 1671 and I think this is a good bet. Unfortunately it wasn't a Quaker marriage so no decent records.
So Philip and Jane married first, in 1659/60 - no problem there. When John married Joan he would have been marrying his brother's mother in law and as far as I can see that was not on the list of Forbidden Marriages.

Thank you for that Arthur.

I inadvertently Unsubscribed to this Thread but was able to get back on from the previous email advising of your post. I'm hoping I am back on now.

Mary

[arthurk]

Well, this seems a reasonable hypothesis, then. But you may need to see what else you can dig up in order to prove it.